Science and religion

[Darkstar]

A lot of whether theology is probable versus possible hinges on the degree to which you care about how important it is to be a good person, and your perception of the importance of peoples sense of a higher good in life.

Now that's just propaganda.

If you see this as very significant to you, you are more apt to find God's existence more probable, because only the concept of God offers a way to ground these values.

If you don't care much about morality, God's existence will seem less probable to you, because the explanatory power the arguments bring to the intensely real problem of morality seems distant.

So, basically, you can't seem to find a way to explain morals, so therefore god?

For those who don't care whether objective morality is real or not, theistic claims lose their strength.

God could exist without objective morality and vice versa.

The existence of many religions which are similar to Christianity is evidence that there is some common revelation as well as mans perversion of the religious system. The existence of very similar religions can be explained by the descriptions of the supernatural such as Pharaohs courts which had magicians and accepting the reality of the occult in the ancient world with Balaam and Balak.

You are using the concept of falsifiability to define whether arguments from God's existence are probable or not, which was developed in the 20th century by Karl Popper. Why should religious belief conform to this standard? You havn't proved it.

Why should anything not conform to the standard? You do know why the standard exists, right?

Also, a more probable interpretation for similar religions is copying. If there were many independent revelations, then why aren't there any of them today, as the world becomes less religious?